Watertown SD News: Federal Judge Suppresses Jeffrey Koistinen Arrest Statements, Delays Trial to December

Northeast Radio SD News – Watertown, SD - A federal judge in Arizona has granted a motion to suppress post-arrest statements Jeffrey Allen Koistinen made during his August 2022 traffic stop, barring federal prosecutors from using them during their case-in-chief at trial.

Alongside the evidentiary ruling, Koistinen’s federal jury trial has been continued for an 11th time to Dec. 22, 2026; his legal defense team has changed co-counsel; and federal prosecutors have stated on the record that a superseding indictment based on undisclosed new evidence is forthcoming.

Koistinen, who remains in federal custody, faces 11 counts in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under an indictment dated Sept. 27, 2023. The charges include five counts of attempted production of child pornography; five counts of attempted coercion and enticement; and one count of receipt of child pornography.

District Court Grants Motion to Suppress Post-Arrest Statements

On Oct. 1, 2026, U.S. District Judge Angela M. Martinez issued an order adopting a Sept. 15, 2026, Report and Recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich, formally granting Koistinen’s Motion to Suppress Post-Arrest Statements and Fruits. Neither the government nor the defense filed written objections within the 14-day review period.

Under Martinez’s Oct. 1 order, the government may not use Koistinen’s post-arrest statements during its case-in-chief at trial. However, because the court found the statements were made voluntarily, the government may use them for impeachment if Koistinen elects to testify at trial.

The August 2022 Traffic Stop and Un-Mirandized Questioning

The suppression dispute centered on events that took place on Aug. 17, 2022, at approximately 6:20 p.m., before officers executed a state search warrant at Koistinen’s residence. According to court filings and hearing transcripts cited in Markovich’s eight-page Report and Recommendation, Tucson Police Department Officer Phillip Hengsteler conducted a traffic stop of a white Tesla SUV driven by Koistinen, with his then-nine-months-pregnant wife, Genevie Koistinen, in the front passenger seat.

According to the factual record established from prior evidentiary hearing testimony and police body-worn camera footage:

·         Invocation of Right to Counsel: Hengsteler had Koistinen step out of and away from the vehicle. Hengsteler knew Koistinen had an attorney and told Koistinen, "we're already talking to him[.]." Koistinen told Hengsteler, "[w]e were told [b]y our attorney don't say anything to you guys." Hengsteler replied, "Hey, that's your constitutional right," and advised Koistinen that he was "being detained."

·         Questioning Regarding the Phone: For officer safety reasons, Hengsteler asked Koistinen’s wife for her purse and phone, and she handed over her purse and a cell phone with a red case. When Hengsteler asked where Koistinen’s phone was, she looked inside the vehicle and said, "I don't know."

·         Custodial Statements to Officer Hengsteler: Marana Police Department Officer Cameron Duarte subsequently advised Koistinen that he was under arrest, handcuffed him, searched him, and placed him in the back of a patrol vehicle. Without reading Koistinen his Miranda rights, Hengsteler opened the patrol vehicle door and asked Koistinen where his phone was. Koistinen responded, "either in the car or 'she has it." (also quoted in defense filings as "it's in the car, or she has it").

·         Custodial Statements to Officer Duarte: Duarte also did not read Koistinen his Miranda rights. Duarte later asked Koistinen if he had his house keys and whether there were dogs at his house. Koistinen stated he did not have his house keys, confirmed he had dogs at his house, and, after Duarte asked how to open it, explained how to open the gate where a box trailer was located on the property. Duarte relayed that information to officers executing the search warrant at Koistinen’s residence.

Government's Response, Voluntariness Briefings, and Impeachment Ruling

Following the defense's July 28, 2026, motion to suppress, U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nathaniel J. Walters and Anshul Krishn filed the government's two-page response on Aug. 7, 2026. In that initial response, the government stated that "without addressing the merits of the defendant's arguments, the United States advises that it will not seek to introduce the defendant's statements in its case-in-chief at trial." However, citing Henry v. Kernan and Harris v. New York, the government maintained that Koistinen's statements were voluntarily made and stated that "the United States reserves the right to use the defendant's statements for impeachment purposes should the defendant elect to testify."

During a 13-minute telephonic status conference on Aug. 26, 2026, before Markovich—with Krishn appearing for the government and retained defense attorney Nicholas Milan Loncar appearing by telephone—Loncar initially challenged the government's contention that the statements were voluntary, arguing they could not be used for any purpose. Because the government's initial response did not address the law or facts supporting voluntariness, and defense counsel had not filed a reply, Markovich ordered both parties to file simultaneous supplemental briefs on voluntariness by Sept. 9, 2026.

In the government's Sept. 9, 2026, supplemental brief, submitted by Courchaine, Walters, and Krishn, prosecutors stated in the opening paragraph that Koistinen "has a significant sexual interest in children" and alleged that he "used Skype for years to view and direct the rape of children in the Philippines." On the voluntariness standard, prosecutors argued there was no coercive police conduct, threats, or promises of leniency during the arrest, and that Koistinen's responses were coherent, logical, and composed. Prosecutors also argued Koistinen "is a wealthy businessman with prior exposure to law enforcement," though Markovich noted in a footnote in his subsequent ruling that the government had not pointed to evidence in the record supporting that claim, and the court could not rely on those specific assertions in its voluntariness analysis.

In the defense's Sept. 9, 2026, supplemental brief, Loncar adjusted the defense's position, stating that "Mr. Koistinen is not seeking suppression of his post-arrest statements for the limited purpose of impeachment of any inconsistent testimony he may give at trial". Loncar also stated the defense was not seeking to exclude physical fruits from the Miranda violation—noting "there is no evidence that his statements led to the discovery of any other evidence"—and was not challenging consent to search, stating Koistinen did not consent. Instead, Loncar requested that the statements be excluded for all purposes not explicitly excepted by law.

Evaluating the record in his Sept. 15 Report and Recommendation, Markovich noted that while the defense had abandoned its challenge to using the statements for impeachment, the body camera footage showed that "the officers' interactions with the defendant could not have been more cordial and respectful." Finding no coercion, threats, physical force, or psychological pressure, Markovich concluded the statements were voluntarily made.

11th Trial Continuance and Forthcoming Superseding Indictment

During the Aug. 26, 2026, status conference, the government noted that it would file a superseding indictment.

On Sept. 4, 2026, Loncar filed a Motion to Extend Plea Deadline and Continue Trial, marking the 11th continuance request in the case. In the motion, Loncar cited four reasons for requesting an approximate 90-day delay of the Sept. 22, 2026, trial date:

·         Pending supplemental briefing on the motion to suppress post-arrest statements.

·         Additional time needed to prepare further motions and trial strategy based on the outcome of the suppression motion.

·         The government's indication "that it intends to file a superseding indictment, which will also be based upon new evidence not yet disclosed".

·         Koistinen is in the final stages of hiring co-counsel to associate with Loncar moving forward.

Walters did not oppose the continuance request. On Sept. 9, 2026, Martinez signed an order granting the motion, finding that granting the continuance served the ends of justice and outweighed the public and the defendant's interest in a speedy trial.

Changes in Defense Counsel

Court records also reflect two recent changes to Koistinen’s legal representation:

·         Withdrawal of Joel Chorny: On Aug. 24, 2026, Tucson attorney Joel M. Chorny filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record, stating that his services "were retained for a discrete and limited purpose, and that purpose has now been fully effectuated." Markovich granted the motion on Aug. 25, 2026.

·         Addition of David E. Ahl: On Sept. 23, 2026, Phoenix attorney David E. Ahl of the law firm Feldman, Royle, Ahl filed a Notice of Association, joining Loncar as co-counsel of record for Koistinen.

Updated Court Schedule

Per Martinez’s Sept. 9, 2026, scheduling order, the updated timeline for the case is as follows:

·         Change of Plea Deadline: Friday, Dec. 4, 2026, by 3 p.m.

·         Deadline for Continuance Motions or Trial Readiness Notification: Monday, Dec. 7, 2026, by 5 p.m.

·         Jury Trial: Tuesday, Dec. 22, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Tucson, Arizona (with counsel required to be present at 9 a.m.).

Koistinen has pleaded not guilty to all counts. All defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law.